Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
TV
Byrne Robotics > TV Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Moffat does Dracula (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 842
Posted: 22 June 2017 at 8:05am | IP Logged | 1  

Not content with running Doctor Who and Sherlock Holmes, Stephen Moffat and Mark Gattiss look to ruin another classic character - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40347479.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 842
Posted: 23 June 2017 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 2  

Correct link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40347479

Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 806
Posted: 24 June 2017 at 10:09am | IP Logged | 3  

He's also ruined Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for good measure too.  :-)
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brandon Scott Berthelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 560
Posted: 24 June 2017 at 11:35am | IP Logged | 4  

Really? I read The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde the other
day and it seemed the same as always. What did Moffat do to it?
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 24 June 2017 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 5  

Really? I read The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde the other day and it seemed the same as always. What did Moffat do to it?

•••

Your question negates your comment. Since you have not seen the Moffat version, you cannot judge whether it might have ruined the story for someone else.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brandon Scott Berthelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 560
Posted: 25 June 2017 at 5:24am | IP Logged | 6  

I have seen it, and didn't really care for it. My point
was the originals are still out there and a bad adaption
does not ruin them.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 25 June 2017 at 9:48am | IP Logged | 7  

I have seen it, and didn't really care for it. My point was the originals are still out there and a bad adaption does not ruin them.

••

Congratulations on getting this far in your life without having something tainted by a bad interpretation.

Back to Top profile | search
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1826
Posted: 25 June 2017 at 5:29pm | IP Logged | 8  

I thought the update of Jekyll was boring. I don't remember if I made it to the end. Russell's Crowe's five minutes as "Eddie" in THE MUMMY was more memorable and entertaining.

Dracula is a story I think benefits from a modern setting, if that's what Moffat and Gatsiss decide to go with. The novel was contemporary and its themes of advancing technology, unconventional sexuality and literally parasitic illegal immigrants are if anything even more resonant in the 21st Century. (I hope it's not gonna be a parable about Muslims, with good vampires like Mina facing discrimination because of isolated high-publicity bad actors like the Count.)

IIRC thanks to the epistolary structure many of the book characters' personalities tended towards capacious sparseness or theatrical eccentricity; either type leaves a lot of room to bring out the worst in Moffat.


Edited by David Miller on 25 June 2017 at 5:38pm
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Joseph Greathouse
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 August 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 426
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 10:46am | IP Logged | 9  

"Congratulations on getting this far in your life without having something tainted by a bad interpretation."

42 years and I have been pretty fortunate to fall into this category as well.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 11:57am | IP Logged | 10  

I don't know whether to envy or pity you.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1577
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 3:55pm | IP Logged | 11  

Wait...something having "a crappy new version" is automatically supposed to ruin the "classic" version? Of anything?
Haven't seen too many people in the 'Star Trek' thread who can't watch TOS because of the Abrams movies. The 'Doctor Who' thread doesn't appear to have too many contributors who've at least sampled a good chunk of the original version, but at least people familiar with both can deal with it.
I think that very little of what DC and Marvel have published in the 20-odd years since I stopped reading comics on a regular basis has made me want to seek out those titles...but it hasn't stopped from enjoying what I grew up reading. I wouldn't scornfully refuse to read an old 'Elongated Man' story just because some idiot got his jollies by killing Sue Dibny.


Edited by Brian O'Neill on 26 June 2017 at 3:57pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 3:57pm | IP Logged | 12  

Wait...something having "a crappy new version" is automatically supposed to ruin the "classic" version? Of anything?

•••

Did somebody say that?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1577
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 4:54pm | IP Logged | 13  

"Tainted", then.
My point was, no 'inferior remale of anything I can think of has ever 'ruined' the original version for me. It's made me wary of other projects by the creative types responsible for the remakes (Hi, JJ Abrams and Stephen Moffat), but I can put aside all that if I revisit the 'originals'.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 26 June 2017 at 4:59pm | IP Logged | 14  

"Tainted", then.

••

Nobody said that, either. Not for everything, not in all cases.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe S. Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 484
Posted: 27 June 2017 at 3:20am | IP Logged | 15  

I used to enjoy Doctor Who but for some years have found it unwatchable. I think that counts as ruining it.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 1826
Posted: 27 June 2017 at 5:06pm | IP Logged | 16  

That makes me wonder: for the people who have found a bad interpretation tainted the original work, how did that taint manifest? Who else can describe their tainted experience with the original?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108758
Posted: 27 June 2017 at 6:27pm | IP Logged | 17  

…for the people who have found a bad interpretation tainted the original work, how did that taint manifest?

••

For me, there have been instances -- only a few, I'm glad to say -- where an "adaptation" so besmirched the original that when I try to watch or read the original I just get angry, and the enjoyment is ruined.

(And, no, I am not going to cite examples.)

Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Saxon
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 June 2016
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 165
Posted: 28 June 2017 at 2:14am | IP Logged | 18  

There's no easy way to say this so I'm just going to come out with it... I enjoyed Jekyll. I thought it was great.

The story was a sequel rather than a modern-day 'reimagining' like Sherlock. James Nesbitt, an actor I hadn't previously rated - indeed I thought of him as a lightweight comedy guy - gave a superb performance as Dr. Jackman and his own version of Hyde, and I liked the rest of the cast too.

While I'm no fan of what Moffat has done to Doctor Who, and I'm kind of 'meh' about Sherlock, I'll defend Jekyll to the hilt.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 169
Posted: 29 June 2017 at 2:43am | IP Logged | 19  

Haven't seen an episode of Dr. Who in my life but I'm a huge Conan Doyle fan and still like SHERLOCK quite a bit, so Moffat is fine by me so far.

Even if I didn't like SHERLOCK it would never ruin or taint the original for me, same for Dracula or anything else for that matter.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 10081
Posted: 29 June 2017 at 5:56am | IP Logged | 20  

I liked quite a few of Moffat's stories in the early years of 'Nu-Who' and even his first season as show runner, but he's gone off the rails since then. I like his take on Sherlock and I'm quite interested to see what he does with Dracula.

Given the vast number of takes on Dracula over the decades, I don't see how they in particular could ruin the character. If bad interpretations ruin Dracula, I fear that horse has long since bolted.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian O'Neill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 November 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1577
Posted: 29 June 2017 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | 21  

If Mel Brooks and Leslie ('Dead and Lovin' It') Nielsen couldn't ruin Dracula, nobody can.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 842
Posted: 01 July 2017 at 4:31am | IP Logged | 22  

For me, Moffat ruined Doctor Who when he introduced the War Doctor. I could almost put up with everything he had done before but theI felt this was an unnecessary move that pissed over all the attempts at continuity that had gone before.

Sherlock started promising but as the storylines became smugger and smugger so did the characters and I fear will have long shadows to any subsequent versions. I never watched Hyde so can't comment there.

Dracula is one of my favourite novels, largely due to it being the first "adult" book I read as a child. Every film version I have seen has fallen short, for me, in getting it right and dilutes the source material slightly each time. I have no reason to believe the Moffat version will be in different given my view on his track record,




Edited by Matthew Wilkie on 01 July 2017 at 6:15am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ted Downum
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1855
Posted: 01 July 2017 at 8:35am | IP Logged | 23  

Nein, danke. I have no interest at all in watching Steven Moffat disgrace another beloved genre character.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Wilkie
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 March 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 842
Posted: 01 July 2017 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | 24  

I have no interest at all in watching Steven Moffat disgrace another beloved genre character.

***

Exactly. Far better put than me.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jozef Brandt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 March 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2288
Posted: 11 July 2017 at 10:18pm | IP Logged | 25  


There's a YouTube video someone sent me recently called something like "Why Sherlock Is Garbage" and it's really a general meditation on Steven Moffat and how he craps all over the pillars of British pop culture.  It has digressions on Doctor Who and Jekyll.

The video puts into words a lot of things about Sherlock that I disliked but couldn't quite articulate.  (And like me, the author of the video still praises some aspects of the show). I highly recommend the video as a Moffat palette cleaner. 
Back to Top profile | search
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login